Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV26910, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26910    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 14, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.

Responding Party: None

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and reply. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint against Defendants, asserting 13 causes of action for FEHA and Labor Code violations.

ANALYSIS

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….”  (CCP § 1281.2.)  The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.   (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).)  “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

A.           Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement executed by Plaintiff on June 26, 2023. (Decl. Ortiz, Exh. A.) The agreement provides, “This Agreement to arbitrate covers all grievances, claims, complaints, disputes or causes of action (collectively, ‘Covered Disputes’) under applicable federal, state or local laws, arising out of Employee’s employment with the Employer and the termination thereof, including disputes Employee may have against the Employer or against its officers, directors, supervisors, managers, employees, or agents in their capacity as such or otherwise, or that the Employer may have against Employee.” (Id.) This action arises out of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

Defendant has met its burden to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion to establish any defenses to enforcement.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is STAYED.